perfectlygenericfandomcom-20200213-history
Talk:Episode 52: Semiotics, Bridges, and Off-Ramps/@comment-2600:1700:730:CFD0:859E:2532:910B:4D8E-20190830064230
Not going to address all the many many things which people are finding to discuss here; there are a lot of good points being made and as this article even goes as far as to STRESS, fan critical analysis is important and relevant. There are always going to be a lot of angles from which to discuss a work, and those are important not “more” or “less” than each other, but in and of themselves for each point which is true about them. EG when people observe the pretentiousness which seems inherent to a work which is controversial and “bad ‘on purpose’”? That’s fair, but if the author really did intend to create such an effect on the audience, then you have to consider the value of that goal, as well as the value of the effect on people if the author succeeded. Isn’t it an interesting concept- the development of the meta? I’m also not sure why people disbelieve AH’s claim that this was one of his intentions with the Epilogues in particular, given that he has been hopping in and out of the meta throughout the main work for SO long? Even if it wasn’t always this intentional(and idk how much of it was), there’s a strong case to be made that this is how AH’s mind works. He wants to explore a narrative wherein he can become one of the characters while still very much the author- is it too much to believe that conversely, he would thrust the power of the pen into the audience’s hands? What is the narrative as we understand it, and how much does it matter, and what is it that we still care about anyway? If AH is being honest about his intentions for the most part, then the people revenge-rating HS are participants in that design, for all that they may reject the notion. This is to say, maybe he succeeded in his goal with the Epilogues. Was the goal good, or even a good idea? That remains to be seen, I think. It’s sort of a pain to read so much complications and negativity and disillusionment, only to be told that those things were not the point, only the media through which the point could begin to be made. However: of course it’s a pain! Would we be so argumentative about it otherwise? Some things can be learned through observation of its consequences on others, but there are other things which can only really be understood if you learn them the hard way. Will we learn a valuable lesson? If AH and his readers are successful, then yes. Another thing I wanted to say is that HS is an incredibly complex work, as we know too well. That’s not a good thing or a bad thing. A long work has room to be complex, and if it still holds the attention of its readers, what is so bad about that? Or good? I don’t really see the need to assign a value judgment to the product as a whole, when we could instead assess the parts for what they are. The parts are more concrete of an idea, for one thing, and in the case of HS the idea of the whole includes the meta conflicts, so disregarding those in a discussion of HS being “good” or “bad”, “successful” or not, is futile. As readers, we came for the parts we found interest in(I mean, there is like, a faction of fans who unabashedly skipped the first 4 Acts!) and maybe people got what they wanted out of the resolutions of those parts. But either way, we left with something bigger, for better or for worse, which includes the way we saw the work. It includes the seed of the author’s intentions, which is to be watered however our perceptions and analyses will have it. HS may or may not be good. The “parts” of it may not be original. But the sum is expansive, and it has a unique kind of depth, no matter from which angle you have observed it. -CL